wtf who deleted my message

yall really flat earthers

what was his argument in the cideo?

video*

so 5g emits non-ionizing radiations?

there are different wave lengths, light bulbs dont emit the same wave length as 5g

https://www.rfsafe.com/5g-network-uses-nearly-same-frequency-as-weaponized-crowd-control-systems/

that argument could easily be countered with human perception

a good argument would be to mention the polaris stars that havent changed position, which would be impossible if the earth was rotating around the sun

check out eddie bravo flat earth podcast with joe rogan, all joe rogan does is call him crazy lol and never refutes anything

save it on drive or on dropbox and link it here

are you really an unironic communist lol

5g is dangerous, you need to have a hazmat suit on if you are to install one of them in a city

i mean logically, there is no way if we see the polaris stars everyday at the same position that the earth can be revolving around the sun. how would that work on a earth that revolves on the sun

so it changes by 0.01111 degrees by how much time?

so your telling me the polaris stars are exactly following the earth all the time?

it wouldnt make sense if the earth was revolving around the sun

but it would make sense if it revolved around the earth

well yeah no shit everything revolves around 15 degrees per hour on a globe earth, >It take millions to billions of years to notice significant change. how can you know that?

argument from authority lol

It was just recently that globe earth became mainstream lol, the indoctrination from hollywood movies and the education system which teaches us what to think and not howto think. Can you please tell how >It take millions to billions of years to notice significant change.

by recently i mean the last century and a half

So you can't measure it, then why make a statement of >It take millions to billions of years to notice significant change.

Also as you said before, if polaris moved around the universe and if it was 323 light-years away by what they say. This means it must be going faster than the speed of light lol

if the polaris stars are 323 light-years away, then shouldn't they be moving at a speed which is faster than what we can imagine that we can observe them everyday at the same location?

this is according to nasa btw

so you are saying that nasa is false?

good job one step to being a flat earther

little by little you will see the bull shit they feed us

@SAM101907 im saying that if it is 323 light-years away according to nasa, then it should be travelling faster than the speed of light to be able to work on a globe earth lol

@SAM101907 Alright, can you please tell me how the Polaris stars are able to be located at the same location everyday when they are 323 light-years away and we are revolving aroudn the sun please

lol i think he quit

just ask any globe earthers this question: how the Polaris stars are able to be located at the same location everyday when they are 323 light-years away and we are revolving around the sun

for me it was the nasa footage glitches and the ropes, warner von braun firmament quote on his death, polaris and how nasa said they cant even go back to the moon

also the accidental moon data which was lost

@SAM101907 Nice, you see how NASA bull shits us? I quoted it from NASA, you see how it doesn't make sense?

There are two possibilities, 1 that we are living on a flat earth and the polaris stars is revolving above earth or 2 that the polaris stars are going faster than the speed of light. Which one is it?

@SAM101907 Please explain how the Polaris stars that are 323 lightyears away are showing up at the same location every day? That wouldn't make any sense on a globe earth, please take a minute and imagine it in your head.

@SAM101907 Imagine you have 3 balls, 1 is the sun 2 is the earth and the 3rd is the polaris stars. the polaris stars are 323 light years away. The earth revolves around the sun. How can the polaris star show up at the same location everyday? I tried to make it as simple for you

@SAM101907 Ah you see, there's where your argument become invalid. If it is relatively stationery, we shouldn't be able to see it at the same location every day

Then your argument is invalid

We shouldn't be able to see it at the same location every day if it is relatively stationery and if it's 323 light years away

@SAM101907 bro please, have you went to college? you should be able to make 3 premises and a conclusion, but your argument will still be invalid

ignore the first part, very rude of me

323 light years would be relatively way more than 4 miles away lol

@SAM101907 Please write your premies and your conclusion, I will show you where it is invalid.

Again, false comparison the distance away would be considerable further from the boat

See, then it shouldn't be 323 light years away

It would be unsound

According to Nasa

If it

is very further away from the boat, wouldn't it need to be moving at an insane speed for us to notice it?

at the same location

I don't know why I'm still typing lol. This argument of yours is unsound if you choose to side with NASA

If it is 323 light years away, we wouldn't be able to see it at the same location every day. Because it would have to catch up to us every day when we revolve around the sun if you believe in the heliocentric model

Now if the earth was stationery and the distance was truly that far away, then we would see it in the same spot every day.

@SAM101907 Check out eddie bravo flat earth podcast, he has some good arguments and some bad ones. Don't take everything for facts, imagine the premises and if they make sense. I really like the polaris one because you can't disprove it without believing in a geocentric model or if you don't believe in NASA

Those photos are real lol, this isn't some abstract thing only NASA can do.

There are many who did this expirement

It still wouldn't work on an earth that revolves around the sun

@skywalk why don't you debate instead of putting lul on people

another very open minded globe earther lol

we debate flat earth here no?

Okay, lets have a discussion about something that doesn't rely on a source like Nasa

@skywalk Would you be willing?

human perception

if we could see further than it wouldn't be dissapearing and do you know how much the earth curves per km?

thats not an argument lol

u are assuming that the earth is a globe, we are debating why the events happen

@skywalk no because the earth isn't perfectly flat land lol

@skywalk how can you prove gravity on a planetary scale?

oops i meant geocentric lol

@skywalk how does water stick to a globe? if gravity then how can prove it? the only way to prove it is to be able to measure it on a planetary scale

@SAM101907 if you stick water to a soccer ball would it stick? no, you need something as massive as the earth, therefore you can't measure it

ignore skywalk hes the bottom of the barrel of globe earthers lol

@SAM101907 buoyancy

@skywalk thats not even gravity you brainlet

@skywalk what you said is centrifugal force not gravity, what a brainlet doesn't even know his own arguments rofl

prove gravity

that doesnt provve gravity

who said the earth was thin?

its flat but still has some depth

why?

water seeks its level

water cant seek it level on a globe

yes

argument of authority

yes

its common sense you can do it yourself lol, however gravity on a planetary scale you cannot

if you cant even explain your own video, probably shouldn't show it lol

explain it with things that we can experiment with the scientific method. not gravity which we can only experiment on a planetary scale

you belive in spiderman?

cgi exists

it's a celestial object, everything revolves on top around the earth. look at the polaris star for instance, it wouldn't work on a heliocentric model

pause at 1:13 lol you can see the concave bend ROFL

https://tenor.com/view/the-matrix-neo-agent-smith-gif-5437245

you have so many talking points yet you cant defend one lol

why do all americans do this when debating? they don't even defend their argument, they just throw another one after getting refuted

damn thats a shame